Volume 5 - Number 1 Bulletin Volume 5 No 1 Aug… · SAQA Bulletin Volume 5 Number 1 In 2002, the...

VOLUME 5 NUMBER 1

July 2004

Funded by the European Unionunder the European Programme forReconstruction and Development

Acronyms and abbreviations iv

Editorial comment 1

Chairperson’s foreword 4

Understanding systemic change in building a South African education

and training system that is world class 6

The National Qualifications Framework: Quo Vadis? 21

Meta-evaluation study: The review of the South Afican Qualifications

Authority and the National Qualifications Framework 47

Education and training in South Africa after a decade of democracy 62

Developing models for the assessment and recognition of prior learning 88

ENSURING QUALITY QUALIFICATIONS

THE SAQA BULLETIN IS PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BYTHE DIRECTORATE: STRATEGIC SUPPORT, SAQA POSTNETSUITE 248, PRIVATE BAG X06, WATERKLOOF, 0145.TEL NUMBER: 012 431 5000 FAX NUMBER: 012 431 5039E-MAIL: [email protected]: www.saqa.org.za

SAQA BULLETIN

Volume 5 - Number 1

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE NOTNECESSARILY THOSE OF THE FUNDER.

Funded by the European Unionunder the European Programme forReconstruction and Development

CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the South AfricanQualifications Authority (SAQA).

COPYRIGHT

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of theSouth African Qualifications Authority (SAQA).

SAQA Bulletin Volume 5 Number 1

Acronyms and abbreviations iv

Editorial comment 1

Chairperson’s foreword 4

Understanding systemic change in building a South African educationand training system that is world class 6

The National Qualifications Framework: Quo Vadis? 21

Meta-evaluation study: The review of the South Afican QualificationsAuthority and the National Qualifications Framework 47

Education and training in South Africa after a decade of democracy 62

Developing models for the assessment and recognition of prior learning 88

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


GENERAL

ABET Adult Basic Education and TrainingCEM Council of Education MinistersCHE Council on Higher EducationCOSATU Congress of South African Trade UnionsDACST Department of Arts, Culture, Science and TechnologyDoE Department of EducationDoL Department of LabourECD Early Childhood DevelopmentFET Further Education and TrainingFETC Further Education and Training CertificateGETC General Education and Training CertificateGET General Education and TrainingHEDCOM Heads of Education Departments CommitteeHEQC Higher Education Quality Committee of the CHEHET Higher Education and TrainingHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acute Immunity Deficiency SyndromeHRD Human Resource DevelopmentJIP Joint Implementation PlanNPDE National Professional Diploma in EducationNSA National Skills AuthorityNSDS National Skills Development StrategyQC Qualifications and Quality Assurance Council (proposed)RPL Recognition of Prior LearningSETA Sector Education and Training AuthorityTOP QC Trade, Occupational and Professional Qualifications and Quality

Assurance Council (proposed)Umalusi Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education

and Training

SAQA

ETQA Educational and Training Quality Assurance BodyNLRD National Learners’ Records DatabaseNQF National Qualifications FrameworkNSB National Standards BodySAQA South African Qualifications AuthoritySGB Standards Generating Body

iv

EDITORIAL COMMENT

The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) publishes the SAQA Bulletinto formalise and represent coherently debates around the NationalQualifications Framework (NQF) so that these debates are opened to the widerresearch community. Responses and comments are welcome, and if appropriate,will be included in the next edition of the SAQA Bulletin.

This edition of the SAQA Bulletin contains five papers focusing on a range ofNQF-related issues.

The first paper entitled Understanding systemic change in building a SouthAfrican Education and Training System: lessons learnt in overseeing the NQF,is based on a presentation in October 2003 by Samuel Isaacs at a local conference hosted by the Delta Foundation. It discusses the systemic changethat the South African system is undergoing, and especially the role played bythe NQF and SAQA. The paper gives a comprehensive description of the legislative framework in which the NQF is being implemented and relates therole of SAQA to other role players in education and training. The first part ofthe paper will be particularly valuable to someone who is not involved daily withthe NQF. The second part of Isaacs’ paper unpacks the deeper underlying sys-temic issues that have confronted SAQA during NQF implementation. Some ofthese include: the effect of a combination of high pressure and high support;the relationship between leadership, management and transformation; thethreat of underlying power issues.

The Isaacs paper covers a broad range of NQF-related issues and sets thescene for the next two papers by Merlyn Mehl and Jonathan Jansen that evalu-ate the documents1 that were recently released by the Departments ofEducation and Labour. In 2003, SAQA commissioned Mehl's paper TheNational Qualifications Framework: Quo Vadis? and Jansen’s paper Meta-evalu-ation Study: The Review of the South African Qualifications Framework and theNational Qualifications Framework with the brief to conduct a meta-evaluationstudy (an evaluation of an evaluation as explained by Jansen) of the recentreviews of SAQA and the NQF. Jansen and Mehl are both recognised academ-ics and have been involved with the NQF since its conceptualisation in theearly 1990s. The two papers represent their personal views and are not neces-sarily those of SAQA nor of the institutions with which they are associated.

A brief background to these two evaluations is useful. NQF stakeholders andpartners were given the opportunity to submit comments on both documents.


1 The Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (April 2002) andAn Independant National Qualifications Framework System Consultative Document (July 2003).


In 2002, the first round of public comments on the Report of the Study Team onthe Implementation of the NQF resulted in the publication in 2003 of the AnInterdependant National Qualifications Framework System: ConsultativeDocument by the Departments of Education and Labour. The ConsultativeDocument is significantly different from the Report of the Study Team, as thetwo responsible Ministers admitted in the foreword to the ConsultativeDocument:

It is with great pleasure that we are able to publish an initial joint response from the Departments of Education and Labour to the Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National Qualifications Framework(April 2002).

We appreciate that this work has taken far longer than expected and that a number of people and process have been inconvenienced in the delay. So much is at stake and so many people will be affected by the outcomes that considerable care had to be exercised in its preparation.

Given that some important proposals in this inter-departmental document differ substantially from those in the Study Team’s Report it is only fair to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on them before final decisions are made (Consultative Document, 2003:ii).

By the time this edition of the SAQA Bulletin was published the public commentphase for the Consultative Document had been completed. Extensive com-ments (including those of SAQA) had been received by the joint departmentalTask Team who was responsible for drawing up the Consultative Document.Except for the sense of urgency conveyed above by the Ministers, thereseemed to be no clear indication of the way forward.

It is against this background that SAQA commissioned Jansen and Mehl toundertake evaluations of the Consultative Document. The two evaluations areinteresting readings and although structured differently, convey a similar mes-sage. This is that the Task Team for the Consultative Document has moved‘well beyond’ the narrow ambit of the terms of reference for the original StudyTeam whose only task was to speed up the implementation of the NQF by con-ducting a focused study:

The Ministers explicitly stated that the study was not aimed at reversing the establishment and goals of the NQF (Report of the Study Team, 2002:3).

Jansen’s paper is a meta-evaluation of the Consultative Document. Mehl usesa broader systemic approach, but nonetheless also addresses the main pro-posals contained in that document.

2

The last two papers go beyond the current NQF debates and focus on thearchitecture of qualifications within South Africa and the assessment andrecognition of prior learning.

The paper by Nadina Coetzee2, entitled Education and Training in South Africaafter a decade of democracy, was presented in September 2003 at the 15thAnnual Conference of the European Association for International Educationheld in Vienna. As was the case with Isaacs paper, Coetzee’s paper gives aparticularly useful overview of South Africa’s transition from past educationpractices and includes a discussion on the establishment of the NQF. Thedetailed description of the current education and training structure complimented by an annexure providing a linear comparison between the previous fragmented structure and the NQF is particularly valuable for theinformed reader.

The final paper by Ronel Heyns3 is entitled Developing models for the assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning. The paper was presented inSeptember 2003 at the Qualification Africa Conference held in Midrand. It is ofa technical nature and will be of particular value to individuals and educationand training providers who are faced with the challenges of implementing RPL.Heyns gives extensive examples of how credits can be obtained for qualificationsand part qualifications in the context of the NQF. She describes ‘equivalence oflearning’ and the identification of appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ assessment instruments. This paper builds on the work done in two other SAQA publications,The Recognition of Prior Learning in the context of the South African NationalQualifications Framework and Criteria and guidelines for the implementation ofthe Recognition of Prior Learning in the context of the South African NQF4

Feedback

Readers are invited to contribute to the NQF-discourse by completing theenclosed feedback form. Comments and papers that contribute to the develop-ment of the NQF-discourse will be considered for inclusion in future publica-tions.

THE STATUS OF ARTICLES IN THE SAQA BULLETIN

SAQA reasserts its statement in previous issues of the SAQA Bulletin that onlythose parts of the text clearly flagged as decisions or summaries of decisionstaken by the Authority should be seen as reflecting SAQA policy.


2 Nadina Coetzee heads up the Centre for the Evaluation of Educational Qualifications at SAQA, which is responsible for the evaluation of foreign qualifications.

3 Ronel Heyns heads up the SAQA Research Unit and has been involved with various RPL-related initiatives.

4 Both these publications are available at http://www.saqa.org.za


CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWORD

As we celebrate the tenth anniversary of our democracy it is crucial to alsoremember that the first act of parliament to be passed in 1995 was the SouthAfrican Qualifications Authority (SAQA). Not only was the legislation symbolicallyimportant it also, through the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), laid astrong foundation for the transformation of education and training from a divid-ed and unequal system to one that seeks to achieve systemic integration andworld-class standards informed by the South African reality.

Between the passage of the legislation and today the journey has been, to putit mildly, daunting. For example, de jure segregation of education and trainingpolicies, practices and facilities has been abolished; the remaining de factosegregation hangs on a precarious thread that is threatened by a growing bevyof anti-discriminatory legislation. So the stubborn remains of the archaic mindset are destined to have a short lifespan.

But the resilience of retrograde modes of thought and practice cannot beunderestimated and therefore must be tackled with great resolve. To be sure,there is an assortment of new challenges. Some of these have to do with theadjustments that hindsight happily offers; while others are imposed by externalenvironmental imperatives. There is an old Chinese saying that counsels theneed to be ‘firm as a pine tree on strategy and, like a willow, to be flexible ontactics’. Likewise, it is important now to keep a steady hand on the vision of theNQF and be flexible on its implementation. However sometimes there can beexcesses on either side as we are presently experiencing with reference to thewillow-side of the metaphor.

This edition of the SAQA Bulletin coincides with a particularly turbulent time inthe development and implementation of the NQF. The delayed finalisation of theongoing NQF review process has resulted in policy and funding uncertainty forSAQA and the NQF. This is indeed troubling.

The NQF review started officially in August 2001 and culminated in the publicationof the Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the NationalQualifications Framework in April 2002 and was followed by an extended periodwherein public comments were received and a response from the Ministers ofEducation and Labour was eagerly awaited. Subsequently, in the light of theextensive comments received, the Education and Labour Ministers decided thata joint position had to be conveyed - this resulted in the appointment of aninter-departmental Task Team with the brief to ‘prepare a draft joint statementon behalf of the Departments of Education and Labour’. The Departments ofEducation and Labour released their joint statement in July 2003 with the

4

publication of The Interdependent National Qualifications Framework System –Consultative Document. The public was, once again, given the opportunity tosubmit comments, which will, according to the Consultative Document, informthe subsequent formulation of a proposed new NQF Bill in 2004.

It is in the midst of all these developments that the South African QualificationsAuthority remains committed to the national priorities of the alleviation of pover-ty, unemployment and poor health through delivering the NQF benefits to allSouth Africa’s learners. These benefits include improved access to educationand training, quality learning, redress, and development within an integratednational framework of qualifications. The publication of relevant and timeouspapers in the SAQA Bulletin is one way in which such important NQF-debatescan be opened to wider intellectual scrutiny. Our NQF will be stronger for suchrobust critical reflection.

Let us delay no more as that puts our achievements at great risk.

Dr Mokubung NkomoChairpersonSouth African Qualifications AuthorityApril 2004



UNDERSTANDING SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN BUILDINGA SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

SYSTEM THAT IS WORLD CLASS

Samuel BA IsaacsSouth African Qualifications Authority

In this presentation I will endeavour to describe briefly the systemic change that ourSouth African education and training system is undergoing, the crucial role played bythe National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the South African QualificationsAuthority (SAQA) which is mandated to oversee the NQF's development and imple-mentation, as well as the lessons learnt in implementing such large scale change.

Describing the systemic change

Professor Kader Asmal, our Minister of Education (2002) aptly stated the challengefor a transformed South African education and training system:

The Department of Education faces one of the most complex and challenging tasks of our society, namely to build an education and training system for the 21stcentury. Our task is to ensure that all South Africans have access to lifelong education and training of high quality.

Similarly, on 27 March 2002 Mr M.M. Mdladlana, our Minister of Labour startedrecording the progress that had been achieved with regard to the national HumanResource Development (HRD) Strategy's learnership target that had beenannounced a year earlier:

Last year, in April, my colleague, the Honourable Minister of Education, ProfessorKader Asmal and I launched the country's first ever Human Resource Development Strategy, which has just been approved by Cabinet. At that launch a promise was made that by March 2002 there would be at least 3000 learners in learnerships. It is March 2002. I am pleased to announce that we have not only reached our target but also, surpassed it. There are 3203 learners inlearnerships (Mdladlana, 2002).

In order to understand the systemic change environment for education and trainingone has to grasp the comprehensive legislative framework that has been estab-lished, SAQA's mandate, Vhutsila the National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS)led by the Department of Labour, Tirisano the Working Together strategic

6

5 This paper was previously published in Du Toit, P. & Westraad, S. (Eds.) 2003. Education and Training:Models for best practice. Port Elizabeth: Delta Foundation, pp.19-33.

5

development plan of the Department of Education, and our national HRD Strategy.These are briefly described below.

The legislative framework

The following acts are essential to the understanding of the nature and scopeof the systemic change being undertaken:

· SAQA Act (No. 58 of 1995)· National Education Policy Act (No. 27 of 1996)· South African Schools Act (No. 84 of 1996)· Higher Education Act (No. 101 of 1997) with subsequent amendments· Skills Development Act (No. 97 of 1998)· Further Education and Training Act (No. 98 of 1998)· Skills Development Levies Act (No. 99 of 1999)

The SAQA Mandate

SAQA's mandate is to oversee the development and implementation of the NQF. The objectives of the NQF referred to in the SAQA Act, (1995) are to:

· Create an integrated national framework for learning achievements· Facilitate access to, and mobility and progressions within, education,

training and career paths· Enhance the quality of education and training· Accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training

and employment opportunities and thereby· Contribute to the full personal development of each learner and the

social and economic development of the nation at large

SAQA ensures that our nation has:

· A standards setting system· A quality assurance system· A comprehensive management information system - the National

Learners' Records Database (NLRD)

The recent advocacy campaign of SAQA summed up SAQA's role well with thepay-off line ‘SAQA - Ensuring Quality Qualifications’.

Vhutsila - The National Skills Development Strategy

Vhutsila has the following objectives:

· Developing a culture of high quality lifelong learning· Fostering skills development in the formal economy for productivity and

employability



· Stimulating and supporting skills development in small business· Promoting skills development, employability and sustainable livelihoods

through social development initiatives· Assisting new entrants into employment

Tirisano - The working together strategic development plan of theDepartment of Education

The implementation plan for Tirisano, 2001-2002 has the following programmes:

· Programme 1: HIV/AIDS· Programme 2: School Effectiveness and Educator Professionalism· Programme 3: Literacy· Programme 4: Further Education and Training· Programme 5: Organisational Effectiveness of the National and

Provincial Departments· Programme 6: Values in Education

The national Human Resource Development (HRD) Strategy

The national HRD Strategy has the following five strategic objectives:

· Improving the foundations for human development· Improving the supply of high-quality skills (particularly scarce skills)

which are more responsive to societal and economic need· Increasing employer participation in lifelong learning· Supporting employment growth through industrial policies, innovation,

research and development· Ensuring that the four strategic objectives of the HRD Strategy are linked

“A nation at work for a better life for all” is a most appropriate one-liner for ournational HRD Strategy.

SAQA and the NQF

The essential nature of the NQF is that of a social construct, in that we associal actors in society not only theorise about, construct and implement it, butwe also enable, actively change or work against it.

The three necessary criteria that must be met for the NQF to be a successfulsocial construct are:

· Democratic participation of stakeholders: Legitimacy of the social construct is seriously undermined if this does not occur.

8

· Intellectual scrutiny: If the social construct cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny, its credibility weakens and therefore its legitimacy is under-mined. For 'intellectual scrutiny', we can read academic scrutiny, international benchmarking, best practice, cutting-edge research and development and appropriate internal comparators.

· Adequate resourcing: Most social constructs falter and fail because of the failure to consider the issues of affordability and sustainability.Designing and building social constructs that we cannot afford to maintain, let alone build, condemns them to failure. However, with regard to the NQF it is not just how much money the state provides, but rather how we release, align and focus the multitude of resources - human, physical and financial - already allocated for education and training.

(Isaacs 2001:124)

SAQA takes all three of these requirements seriously and seeks to meet themthrough operationalising its functions via appropriate infrastructure, processesand procedures.

To operationalise standards setting, quality assurance and the NationalLearners' Records Database, SAQA has established the following sub-structures as illustrated in the diagram below:


LegendNSB National Standards BodySGB Standard Generating BodyETQA Education and Training Quality Assurance Body

Sta

ndar

ds S

ettin

g

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ce


These sub-structures relate to the various principal role players and stakeholdersin the education and training system as illustrated in the diagram below:

In order to manage its functions SAQA has established six directoratesreporting to an Executive Officer. SAQA's organogram is depicted below:

10

LegendDoE Department of EducationDoL Department of LabourCHE Council on Higher EducationHEQC Higher Education Quality CommitteeNSA National Skills AuthoritySETAs Sector Education and Training AuthoritiesGENFETQA council General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council (called UMALUSI)

(SAQA’s Annual Report 2002)

The design and establishment of adequate infrastructure and capacity to fulfil one'sorganisational and systemic mandate is essential for success. From our experiencewe have highlighted the following success factors:

· Systems are in place.· Joint implementation plans.· Tight project management.· Open communication.· Practices are embedded.· Risk management.· Results-based management.· Understanding of systemic change.

The first and last factors have been the subject of the foregoing. With regard to opencommunication: Communication is seen as a critical strategic support function andthis directorate is responsible for ensuring that SAQA implements its five-year communications strategy. Joint implementation plans and tight project managementare commented on later in this section. The remaining success factors are discussed in the final section.

While discussing the infrastructure and capacity requirements for the kind of systemic change initiated by the NQF, one often forgets about why a country would want an NQF. In addition to those expressed as objectives of our NQF (namely integration, access, quality, redress and development) there are the following globalimperatives that drive the formation of national qualifications frameworks:

· Promoting the development of a nation that is committed to lifelong learning.· Ensuring quality education and training.· Intellectual capital for a competitive edge.· Rapid technological change.· Change, change and more change.

Dave Ulrich (1998) describes a similar set of imperatives that drive strategic humanresource management and at SAQA we agree that human resource managementand development is a strategic function. For this reason we have a directorate dedicated to it.

In the same vein, it is insightful to view the critical cross-field education and trainingoutcomes that form part of all qualifications that are registered on our NQF. These are:

· Identifying and solving problems in which responses display thatresponsible decisions using critical and creative thinking have been made.



· Working effectively with others as a member of a team, group, organisation, community.

· Organising and managing oneself and one's activities responsibly and effectively.

· Collecting, analysing, organising and critically evaluating information.· Communicating effectively using visual, mathematical and/or language

skills in the modes of oral and/or written persuasion.· Using science and technology effectively and critically showing

responsibility towards the environment and health of others.· Demonstrating an understanding of the world as a set of related systems

by recognising that problem-solving contexts do not exist in isolation.· Contributing to the full personal development of each learner and the

social context at large, by making it the underlying intention of any programme of learning to make an individual aware of the importance of:

- Reflecting on and exploring a variety of strategies to learn more effectively.

- Participating as responsible citizens in the life of local, national and global communities.

- Being culturally and authentically sensitive across a range of social contexts.

- Exploring education and career opportunities.- Developing entrepreneurial opportunities.

(NSB Regulations, 1998)

This list is similar to the core skills, essential outcomes, key learning abilitiesand generic competencies of other countries. Note that systems-thinking isspecifically covered under 'demonstrating an understanding of the world as aset of related systems by recognising that problem-solving contexts do notexist in isolation.' In order to understand systemic change we all must mas-ter this critical learning outcome.

I will use Vhutsila, our National Skills Development Strategy (NSDS) toillustrate how SAQA supports such systemic strategies for the delivery ofNQF benefits to learners. Learnerships (our new apprenticeships) and skillsprogrammes are cornerstones of Vhutsila. These are underpinned and supported by:

· The qualifications and standards registered by SAQA on the NQF.· The quality assurance processes of ETQAs.· Learner data and achievements captured on the NLRD.

12

For each of the NSDS objectives SAQA contributes through its role in overseeing the NQF. The table below illustrates this:

Achieving the performance indicators of strategy objectives requires the ongoing monitoring of and intervening in the system by the principal roleplayersto ensure that the objectives are being advanced and will indeed be achievedover agreed timelines. What is often overlooked is that the achievement ofobjectives requires that the principal roleplayers and stakeholders must all playtheir part. Too often there is apportionment of blame when things go wrongand one party claiming all credit when there are significant achievements. AtSAQA we have found that mutually agreed joint implementation plans (JIPs)between roleplayers are essential in systemic change processes to ensure thatall the necessary roleplayers acknowledge and take responsibility for the specificaction plans that they have to execute. JIPs can then be very effectively usedin tight project management processes to hold all parties accountable in orderto achieve the desired results. It is also easier in such circumstances to highlight potential problems, their causes and the remedial actions to be taken.As standards, qualifications and quality assurance is at the heart of the HRDStrategy, SAQA readily enters into JIPs with stakeholders and principal



roleplayers to ensure that it plays its rightful part in advancing the objectives ofthe NQF. It is therefore appropriate to record SAQA's achievements as atOctober 2002:

Our standards settings setting system is fully developed and implemented.Significant outputs are:

· 12 functioning National Standards Bodies.· 235 new qualifications registered.· 7200 existing qualifications interimly registered.· 3796 Standards registered.· 134 registered Standards Generating Bodies.· 48 Standards Generating Bodies in formation.

Our quality assurance system is developed and implemented. Significantoutputs are:

· 33 accredited Education and Training Quality Assurance Bodies (ETQAs).

· Ongoing monitoring in place.· Audits being planned for execution during 2003.· Evaluating foreign qualifications.

Our National Learners' Records Database is fully developed and installed.

It has a capacity for thirty million individual learner records and is presentlybeing populated. This electronic management information system will enableus to monitor our education and training system and inform policy decision-making. The NLRD is a world first and will enable us to do longitudinal andtracer studies on our learners with considerable ease and cost reduction.While outputs (results) are important, it is their impact that is most significant.To this end, the impact of SAQA's achievements are:

· The NQF is at the cutting edge, worldwide.· There is wide participation in, and understanding of, education and

training systemic change.· Greater co-operation among stakeholders and sectors in a coherent

approach is visible.· There is improved quality and accountability.· In overseeing the NQF, SAQA underpins the national HRD Strategy and

supports the DoE's Tirisano Programme and the DoL's Vhutsila Skills Development Strategy.

14

· The assurance that the South African education and training system will be world class.

· The NLRD is assisting to monitor the education and training system and inform decision-making.

Lessons learnt in overseeing the NQF

Transformation of education and training systems are fraught with many difficulties. Just dealing with the democratic participation of stakeholders, intellectual scrutiny and adequate resourcing presents unique and interestingchallenges. SAQA has utilised the following models in order to fulfil its role inoverseeing the NQF:

High pressure - high support

Michael Barber and Vicki Phillips (2000:277-281) produced the model above.This model demonstrates that rapid progress and high performance occurwhen systems are put under pressure and given high support. Unfortunatelythe rhetoric is always ‘you must do more with less’ and given the low levels ofsupport (including inadequate resourcing), this results in conflict and demorali-sation. Persons exposed to this model can always clearly identify the state oftheir programme, organisation or system. In order to meet strategic objectivesthe accountability (high pressure) through appropriate monitoring and evalua-tion must be matched with high support (adequate resourcing, training, commu-nication and other necessary support).

An example of how SAQA endeavours to provide high support to its stakehold-ers is the SAQA-Canadian International Development Agency Project's NQFSupport Link which targets initially the Further Education and Training sector.The NQF Support Link is an end-to-end solution which can be delivered by



electronic, hard copy and face-to-face modalities.

It has the following six modules:

· Module 1: Implementing the NQF· Module 2: Strategic Governance and the NQF· Module 3: Learning Programmes and the NQF· Module 4: Assessment and the NQF· Module 5: Learnerships and the NQF· Module 6: Information systems, the NRLD and the NQF

The relationship between leadership, management, short-term results andsuccessful transformation

The model below by John Kotter (1996:129) in his book, ‘Leading Change’ isinsightful:

Highly successful transformation efforts require high leadership and high man-agement. Again, persons can quickly identify which quadrant their programme,organisation or system falls. SAQA has learnt that excellent leadership mustbe matched with excellent management. In the South African context theongoing effective management of processes, programmes, organisations andsystems poses a special challenge in respect of the backlogs and underdevel-opment of the majority of South Africans under decades of Apartheid. Capacity,capability and financing all become critical.

Results-based management

SAQA has adopted a results-based management approach in overseeing theNQF. Implicit in this approach is the balancing of the three R's: Results, Reachand Resources. Desired results in terms of outputs, outcomes and impact are

16

clearly articulated. The reach in terms of its effects on society and its socialpartners are monitored. Resources (human, physical, material and organisational) are utilised and channelled to achieve the desired results sothat the reach in terms of the impact for beneficiaries in society is maximised.This management approach has allowed SAQA to provide the high levels ofmanagement required in terms of risk analysis and management. Needless tosay, the issues around adequate resourcing and nationally agreed results andreach are clearly highlighted in a results-based management approach.

Risk analysis and management

It is critical to do a thorough risk analysis and develop the necessary strategiesto address each risk as there is decreasing management control over the life ofa project or implementation plan. The diagram below illustrates this:

Failure to do thorough risk analysis and management results in projects andimplementation plans facing increasingly greater risks and the potential for fail-ure and catastrophe is significantly enhanced.

Issues of power

While SAQA took all three of the requirements for democratic participation, intel-lectual scrutiny and resourcing seriously and sought to meet them, the underlyingpower issues were in a constant state of flux. The most critical threat to the suc-cessful implementation of the NQF was clearly recognised and documented inMay, 1998 as the overt and covert agendas of NQF stakeholders. These stake-holders include SAQA members, SAQA staff, government departments, profes-sional councils and bodies, consultants, providers, industrial training boards (nowabsorbed into sector education and training authorities) and other stakeholders



(Isaacs 2001: 138). These underlying power contestations are rooted in:

· the integrated approach to education and training.

· the lack of a ‘NQF strategic partnership’ between the Department of Education, the Department of Labour and SAQA.

· the lack of communities of trust, the vested interests, inconsistencies in legislation, incoherent policy development and implementation, and lack of leadership authority recognised both by office and competence.

The upshot of these power contestations led to difficulties in regard to adequategovernment funding for SAQA and to differing perceptions and expectations of theNQF's development and implementation. On 12 July 2001, the Ministers ofEducation and Labour established a Study Team whose brief was to 'examine howthe NQF is developing and how we can focus, accelerate and strengthen itsimplementation'. The NQF Study Team Report was released on 6 May 2002 forpublic comment by 5 July 2002. SAQA submitted a detailed response by the duedate. In it SAQA (2002) stated:

Given that the NQF is a major vehicle for the transformation of education and training in South Africa and that it underpins and supports the national Human Resource Development Strategy, the Skills Development Strategy (Vhutsila) and Tirisano, it is untenable that its development and implementation is retarded by policy uncertainty, lack of adequate resourcing and strategic systemic leadership. The Report addresses these issues and SAQA broadly supports the relevant recommendations with a few concerns that need to be considered…

and

…SAQA thanks the Ministers of Education and Labour for creating this significant opportunity to move the NQF to a higher level of development and implementation. We trust that the political decisions around the recommendationsand the responses to them will be speedily taken, so that we can move away from the de-stabilisation of policy uncertainty to rapid delivery of the benefits of the NQF to the millions of learners as envisaged in the national HRD Strategy, Vhutsila and Tirisano.

At the time of writing (28 October 2002), Ministerial finality on the recommendationsof this report had not been achieved. Given the well documented commitment of theMinisters of Education and Labour to the NQF, the policy uncertainty which hasensued is indicative of the complexity around large scale education and training

18

transformation. Michael Fullan (1999) rightly concludes that moral purpose, ideasand power are necessary for education change and that ‘moral purpose and ideaswithout power means that the train never leaves the station’. Successful systemicchange like that enabled by the NQF requires that one ensures and maintains thenecessary power to develop and implement it. The power flux experienced bySAQA directly affects its ability to exercise leadership in its role of overseeing thedevelopment and implementation of the NQF.

Conclusion

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development on 27 August 2002 we show-cased SAQA, which has been a significant beneficiary of European Union fundingsince 1999, on the European Union stand at the Ubuntu Village. We used the fol-lowing diagram to illustrate how SAQA and its partners in the NQF were locatedwithin the ‘Planet, Prosperity, People’ of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the ‘Quality Life for All’ of our national HRD Strategy:

This diagram summarises the systemic change SAQA and our country isengaged in. I trust that in this presentation I have demonstrated that ‘we aremaking the NQF road by walking reflectively, accountably and boldly’ as well ashighlighting important features of models of best practice in education andtraining transformation.



References

Asmal, K. (2002). Message from the Minister in Quality education for all:Statement of public service commitment. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Barber, M. & Phillips, V. (2000). Big change questions. Should large-scale assess-ment be used for accountability? The fusion of pressure and support. Journal ofEducational Change, 1(3), pp. 277-281.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Isaacs, S.B.A. (2001). Making the NQF road by walking reflectively, accountablyand boldly. In Sayed, Y. & Jansen, J. (Eds.). Implementing education policies: TheSouth African experience. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Mdladlana, M. (2002). Celebration of the 3000th Learner. Speech by the Ministerof Labour, 27 March in Kwazulu Natal. Pretoria. Department of Labour.

South Africa. (1995). South African Qualifications Authority Act (No. 58 of 1995).Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. (1998). Regulations under the South African Qualifications Authority(Act No. 58 of 1995). Government Gazette No. 18787 of 28 March 1998. Pretoria:Government Printer.

South African Qualifications Authority. (2002). Response by the South AfricanQualifications Authority to the Report of the Study Team on the implementation ofthe National Qualifications Framework. (Unpublished).

South African Qualifications Authority. (2002). Annual Report. Pretoria: SAQA.

Ulrich, D. (1998). Introduction. In Ulreich, D. (ed) Delivering results: A new man-date for human resource professionals. Harvard Business Review Book Series.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Endnote

Risk Analysis and the diagram of decreasing management control of risk overthe life of a project came out of a management seminar. Unfortunately theoriginal source could not be traced in time for this publication.

20

THE NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK:QUO VADIS?

Dr Merlyn C MehlTriple L Academy (Pty) Ltd.

Introduction

Eight years ago the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was introduced inSouth Africa and started permeating the consciousness of education and training. In 1995, it was enshrined in the South African Qualifications AuthorityAct and the newly established body, the South African Qualifications Authority(SAQA) was charged with its implementation.

To give effect to the NQF, and closely allied to its introduction, two very substantiallogistical operations were mounted in South Africa society. These were the following:

· The establishment of SAQA itself.· The setting up of 25 Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs)

to implement the Skills Development Act (1999) and the Skills Development Levies Act of 1999.

New concepts and new entities cannot be introduced into complex adaptive systems such as education and training structures without the system realigning its components, regrouping existing structures and protecting transitional and existing interests. It is often thought that changes introducedinto a system will be seamlessly incorporated for the greater good, particularlyif, as was the case with the NQF in 1995, they enjoy national and ideologicalacclaim. Changes seldom work that way and in 2003 the NQF is no exception.

The educational sector of South Africa now has before it two reports based oninvestigations of SAQA's activity during the past seven years. These are thefollowing:

1. South Africa. Department of Education and Department of Labour. (2002).Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National QualificationsFramework. Pretoria.

2. South Africa. Department of Education and Department of Labour. (2003).An Interdependent National Qualifications Framework System. Consultativedocument. Pretoria.



While both reports explicitly state that there is still support for the NQF from allsectors of society, it is important to examine whether the recommendations thatare made fully mirror this stated position. Or have elements of the educationand training environment realigned themselves to support certain aspects ofthe NQF, while sidelining, or ignoring, others?

As far as South African society in the broad sense is concerned the questionis: the NQF – Quo Vadis?

The great integrating vision of the NQF

It is important to remember that, particularly in the period 1990-1994; one ofthe main proponents of the NQF in South Africa was organised labour. This isnoteworthy because it underscores the fact that while the NQF deals with theoutcomes of education and training, namely, qualifications, it is an importantsocial contract. Indeed, it goes to the very heart of how society recogniseslearning achievements in its midst.

Significantly the SAQA Act of 1995 was the first Act promulgated by theDepartment of Education of South Africa's first democratic government. Thefact that SAQA would be jointly accountable to the Ministers of Education andLabour in the implementation of the NQF was both groundbreaking and visionary. It underscored the joint commitment of the two Ministries to implement a policy in education and training that would satisfy both its constituencies. It signalled the beginning of a truly integrated education andtraining system that would be expressed in the NQF.

Put another way, democratic government was highlighting its intent to try toachieve something deemed well nigh impossible in many education and training systems in the world. Why was such a bold, innovative and visionaryapproach applied to an area such as education and training that is generallyregarded as extremely difficult to shift, let alone change?

It stemmed from the recognition that if there is no change in the way in whichqualifications are awarded in society, then little else will change easily. The wayin which society recognises, rewards and measures learning achievement isthrough qualifications. It is society that provides the ultimate validation of qualifications and accords respect to the bearer. Society awards status andalso opportunity and privilege.

The apartheid legacy of South Africa completely skewed these customary societal norms. It produced, as State policy, a situation characterised by someof the most pernicious inequalities in the world in terms of human resource

22

development. This is easily seen in the way that education and training qualifications are distributed through South African society. This situation arosebecause of lack of opportunity for the majority of the population and the calculated mediocrity of the schooling for most South Africans.

Despite these adverse conditions, countless black South Africans took everyopportunity they could to learn. Over many years, for many individuals, muchof this learning happened in workplaces and other areas of social endeavour.Unfortunately, in contrast to the discipline and institution-based qualificationsthat characterised much of South African society before 1995, this type oflearning is badly codified, unstructured and has not readily led to formal qualifications.

The NQF was introduced into this environment and its objectives as outlined inthe SAQA Act are to:

· create an integrated national framework for learning achievements;facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and career paths;

· enhance the quality of education and training;· accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training

and employment opportunities; and thereby· contribute to the full personal development of each learner and the social

and economic development of the nation at large.

Based on the numbers of people involved, it is apparent that to achieve theseaims requires a complete societal restructuring of how and where learning isrecognised, structured and rewarded. The last census indicates that a mereeight percent of the population have tertiary degrees. Of the 850 000 peopleworking in the Wholesale & Retail Sector, two percent have degrees. The 833 000 persons with, at best, school based qualifications, exceed the totalnumbers of learners at all universities and technikons in the country.

Clearly, a dynamic and different approach is required. The NQF is thatapproach. To what extent do we as a nation continue to push for its full implementation?

Conceptual developments around the NQF

There is a growing, emerging literature on NQFs around the world. This ishardly surprising given the improved understanding that has developed aboutthe ways in which knowledge is produced in society particularly with the adventof the ‘knowledge economy’.



Countries around the world have responded to the learning challenges faced bytheir societies by establishing national qualifications frameworks. Chapter 4 of theReport of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National QualificationsFramework (2002:36) entitled ‘International Developments’ provides a comprehensive summary of the development of NQFs around the world. Thischapter represents an important resource for appreciating the scope, range andreach of NQFs worldwide:

The NQF concept has spread to all continents and is still gathering strength.It might be too soon to decide that qualification frameworks in some form will permanently change the way in which all education and training systems work, but the concept has recently attracted impressive endorsements from the worldeducation and training community (Study Team, 2002:36).

SAQA has contributed in no small measure to this literature with comprehensivepublications outlining both the need and function of the NQF. It has enabled theNQF focus to be refined and expanded. The publication The NationalQualifications Framework: An Overview (SAQA, 2000:7) says:

If South Africa is to take up its position in the global village, it needs toembrace the new vocabulary of which Barnett speaks: competence and outcomes. Countries in Europe, the Pacific Rim, Australasia, and North America have either adopted or moved in the direction of a national qualifications framework, underwritten by a commitment to outcomes-based education. South Africa cannot afford to ignore these developments. The South African NQF with its emphasis on the notion of applied competence — the ability to put into practice in the relevant context the learning outcomesacquired in obtaining a qualification — is already contributing to these debates and developments.

Associated with the recognition that knowledge needs redefinition is the recognition that sites of learning are many and varied. The traditionaldefinitions of knowledge have implicitly designated formal institutions of learning as the primary site of learning. This perception has been reinforced by the fact that in most instances, a qualification is awarded by an institution, before any further learning in a practical environment is obtained by the learner.In other words, the sub-text is that once the qualification has been awarded, learning is over — and unless a learner registers for a new, formal qualification,learning for life is over! This bias towards qualification-as-destination is at oddswith reality and also with what the White Paper on Education and Training (1995:15) identifies as the education and training requirement of a successful economy and society:

24

Successful modern economies and societies require the elimination of artificial hierarchies, in social organisation, in the organisation and management of work, and in the way in which learning is organised and certified. They require citizens with a strong foundation of general education, the desire and ability to continue to learn, to adapt to and develop new knowledge, skills and technologies, to move flexibly between occupations, to take responsibility for personal performance, to set and achieve high standards, and to work co-operatively.

If one accepts that there is more than one dimension to knowledge and hence that learning continues both before and after a qualification has been awarded in a variety of sites of learning, then in order to achieve integration and coherence within the system so that access and portability can becomea reality, it is necessary to clearly articulate the outcomes of learning achievements.

It is important to highlight the following central considerations in the area ofknowledge-production in society that have become clearer as the implementa-tion of the NQF has evolved:

1) Varied areas of knowledge-production

It is worth reminding ourselves of one of the seminal statements made in 1996with respect to the NQF. This appeared in the Department of Arts, Culture,Science and Technology White Paper on Science and Technology: Preparingfor the twenty-first century and introduced the idea of setting up a NationalSystem of Innovation. It elaborated extensively on the phenomenon of newforms and areas of knowledge production:

Traditional ways of producing knowledge within single disciplines and institutions are being supplemented by knowledge generated within various applied contexts. This is knowledge that is collaboratively created within multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary research programmes directed to specific problems identified within social and economic systems. Setting up a national system of innovation in South Africa that will stimulate such collaborative, multi-disciplinary, applications-based research will require new policy (DACST, 1996:6).

The White Paper calls this ‘problem-solving knowledge’.

It is important to recognise that there is clear acknowledgement of the fact thatthere are numerous ‘knowledge-generating’ environments in our society. This



knowledge is generally ‘multi-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary’ in nature. ForSouth Africa with its strict discipline-based education and associated qualifications structure, this recognition represents an important shift from the past.

Some illustrative categorisations of these knowledge-production environmentsare illuminating. These include the following:

2) Discipline-based knowledge-production

These are the best recognised areas and are usually given as prime examplesof human intellectual achievement. Thus, for example, Einstein's GeneralTheory of Relativity is widely regarded as one of the greatest feats of intellectu-al endeavour in a purely theoretical environment, requiring years before it couldbe subjected to vigorous practical proof. This is knowledge-production requir-ing years of the study of a discipline. The history of mankind is replete withsimilar examples both theoretical and practical.

Much of university and latterly, technikon endeavour is focused on this highlevel, discipline-based knowledge-production. Students at the lower levels areprepared for this by being exposed to the codified knowledge that has devel-oped over centuries. Lower degrees are often simply stepping stones to enterthis high level knowledge-production environment.

This is the environment with which all learners at tertiary level are acquaintedfrom school onward. Historically, it is also the one area of society within whichqualifications have been defined. As such it establishes the benchmark for allqualifications that are developed. And because of the value that society attach-es to qualifications, any qualifications that are generated in different knowledge-production areas will be judged against these.

One of the main purposes of the NQF is to establish a ‘parity of esteem’ amongthe various sites of knowledge-production. However, given the long history ofdiscipline-based knowledge-production and the associated qualifications struc-tures underpinned by established and esteemed structures such as universi-ties, this will be extremely difficult to achieve.

It will take years of qualification establishment in other knowledge-productionenvironments and assessment of equivalence, before any ‘parity of esteem’ willbe established. Society's acceptance of these ‘alternative qualifications’ will notbe achieved automatically.

26

3) High level inter-disciplinary knowledge-production environments

Closely associated with the above areas, are the areas of application in variousproblem-solving situations. Consider, for example, how an institution such asthe National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States ofAmerica solved the problem of placing persons on the moon. It was an inter-disciplinary endeavour involving physicists, chemists, mathematicians,engineers, et cetera. When the problem was solved by successfully placingpeople on the moon, the knowledge-production in the process belonged to all,and not specifically to any one discipline. This example is repeated in manydifferent problem-solving environments in society.

For the purpose of this discussion it is important to recognise that despite thishigh level of knowledge-production and its close association with the discipline-bases, qualifications have not traditionally been generated from this inter-disciplinary knowledge-base.

4) Knowledge-production in economic sectors

With the growth in the ‘knowledge economy’, the importance of knowledge-production in various sectors has become more and more apparent. Indeed, inmany sectors, the speed with which new knowledge can be generated isregarded as contributing to significant competitive advantage for the holders ofthat knowledge.

Out of this has come the concept of the intellectual capital of organisations. Itis variously defined as follows: ‘Intellectual Capital is intellectual material — knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience — that can be put touse to create wealth’.

Companies are beginning to value these intangible assets in the same way thatthey value the assets on their balance sheets. From this has arisen the field ofKnowledge Management within companies.

Clearly, if there is so much actual value that can be attached to the ‘knowledgeassets’ of organisations, then it must follow that people in workplaces, by absorbing this knowledge, that is, by learning, can but develop. Workplace learning deepens and broadens this knowledge-base.

Notice how the book Understanding learning at work (Bound & Garrick, 1999)begins:



Learning at work has become one of the most exciting areas of development in the dual fields of management and education. It has moved to become a central concern of corporations and universities; it is no longer the pre-occupation of a small band of vocational training specialists.

Today we see employees extending their educational capabilities in learning through their work. At the same time, opportunities and problems within work are creating the need for new knowledge and understanding.

It has become apparent that the notion of workplaces as focused users of narrow skills with very limited portability to other economic sectors is completely outdated. Within what is now called the ‘knowledge economy’,workplaces are recognised as multi-faceted, inter-disciplinary knowledge environments not at all limited to a narrow technical skills-base. Theemphasis in today's workplaces on values, life skills, communication, management as well as a diversity of sector-specific knowledge-areas,redefines it as a developer of specific, general and highly portable competencies.

In defining 25 Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) theDepartment of Labour (DoL) has begun an important process of codifyingthese knowledge-production environments. Given the amount of overlapbetween these sectors it can be seen that these areas are not cast instone. It is only in the process of implementation that overlaps and repetitions will be eliminated.

This will be achieved only by establishing the appropriate sectoral qualifications frameworks and the associated qualification-sets that definethese areas. In this way only is there any hope of establishing a ‘parity ofesteem’ with discipline-based qualifications.

5) Poorly defined areas of knowledge-production

Within the areas of high level inter-disciplinary knowledge-production environmentsand knowledge production in economic sectors defined above, certain areasdemonstrate better knowledge-codification than others. Thus in the past, cer-tain areas were defined in terms of apprenticeships. Much of this definitiontook place in the manufacturing and associated areas. However, other areasare completely ill-defined. A few examples are given below to illustrate this.

28

i) The Wholesale & Retail Sector

Despite the large number of people it employs and its long history, few formal quali-fications exist in institutions or elsewhere in the sector. It can be said with certaintythat nothing exists that reflects the variety of work and knowledge of the sector.In defining the sector it is necessary to establish the following:

· A functional taxonomy of the functions that delineate the sector.· A knowledge taxonomy that outlines the knowledge that underpins the

functions.

An analysis of the knowledge required to define the sector demonstrates the richness of the learning that is embedded in it.

ii) The Information Technology Sector

This sector is characterised by a plethora of short-courses with few qualificationsthat are not vendor-driven. A major problem is that the formal institutional sectordoes not have the agility to define qualifications in an area that changes so rapidly.

The only means of achieving a definition of qualifications is to establish a dynamic qualifications framework that is based on functional and knowledge taxonomy of the area. Unit standards are a convenient way of capturing this. Asthe sector changes, the qualifications framework can be added to or unnecessaryparts can be eliminated.

iii) The Service Sector

Because of the range of areas that fall in this sector, there is no one-size-fits-allapproach to establishing qualifications frameworks in the various areas. Forexample, for domestic workers a unique, new framework had to be established.In the labour relations area, new qualifications have to be defined despite the factthat significant learning has always characterised those working in the area. Inthe public relations arena on the other hand, technikons in particular have well-defined qualifications but are significantly lacking in actual workplace experience.

6) The Spectrum of Knowing and Doing

Another means of characterising the various areas of knowledge-production is torecognise the importance of ‘doing’ as part of learning. For example, it is notpossible to get a driver's licence without considerable actual experience of driving. Similarly, the country's medical training recognises the crucial importanceof mixing theory and practice. The quality of the hospital practice in this countrycontributes significantly to producing the competent doctors we have.



What has become very apparent is that ‘experience’ has significant amounts ofknowledge wrapped up in it. The problem is that it has never been adequatelycodified and made explicit. And it certainly has no qualifications that recognise it.

7) General considerations

If the NQF is to be successfully implemented then it is crucial that we recognise the variety of knowledge-production arenas in society. With this aspoint of departure the immense NQF task can follow a defined developmentalpath. This recognition at least delineates the task that is at hand if the objectives outlined in the SAQA Act are to be realised.

Note the following from The National Qualifications Framework: An Overview(SAQA, 2000:6):

Ronald Barnett's discussion of competence in higher education epitomises the kinds of transition that are taking place in education and training systems the world over:

The new vocabulary in higher education is a sign that modern society is reaching for other definitions of knowledge and reasoning. Notions of skill, vocationalism, transferability, competence, outcomes, experiential learning capability and enterprise, when together, are indications that traditional definitions of knowledge are found to be inadequate for meeting the systems-wide problems faced by contemporary society.Whereas those traditional definitions of knowledge have emphasised language, especially through writing, an open process of communication, and formal discipline-bound conventions, the new terminology urges higher education to allow the term knowledge to embrace knowledge-through-action, particular outcomes of a learning transaction, and trans-disciplinary formsof skill.

At present, SAQA is confronted with the following three ways of categorisingthe knowledge that exists in our society:

1. The 12 Organising Fields6 established at the outset of the NQF process.Each of these has roughly five sub fields defined by each National Standards Body (NSB) and approximately 60 knowledge areas.

2. The 25 SETAs established to oversee/define the education and training in their particular sector. Each SETA has roughly the equivalent of six chambers thus defining some 150 knowledge domains.

3. The normal discipline divisions that characterise formal Education and Training.

30

6 For the 12 NQF Organising Fields refer to Endnote on page 46.

If the NQF is to be developed coherently, it is necessary to determine a meansof reconciling the articulation of the various areas of knowledge-production. Inaddition, the relative intellectual value of the various sites and the way in whichqualifications are structured within and across them becomes a very necessaryendeavour.

It may help to recognise that the distinction that is normally drawn between‘academic’ learning as the means of developing the individual, expanding themind, et cetera, and workplace learning as narrow, focused and providing onlytechnical competency, is under review in the modern knowledge-driveneconomies around the world.

What enhances the challenge of standards setting in these various areas is thefact that workplace learning is often highly contextual as well as being inter-disciplinary. Since ‘inter-disciplinary’ is, by definition, a combination of a number of disciplines, the problems translate into understanding the ‘what’ ofthe discipline that is required and ‘how’ articulation is achieved between disciplines.Contextual issues, seen in this light, become a matter of codifying knowledgeappropriately and integrating it across disciplines. All these seemingly intractableissues are precisely what the NQF is designed to address.

One of the major challenges is not to perpetuate the past but to embrace thetremendous opportunities implicit in our definition as a society of 25 knowledge-production sectors each represented by a SETA. The SETA is the designatedauthority to define, describe and codify the knowledge of the sector and todeliver appropriate education and training within that sector on the back ofnewly defined qualifications — the learnerships. The opportunities for creativeand different approaches are unparalleled in the history of South Africa.

Practical developments within the NQF over seven years

The establishment of SAQA as the vehicle to implement the NQF provides uswith a convenient means of determining how the existing institutions haveadapted to the implementation. It also makes it possible to analyse whetherthe existing institutions (particularly those tasked with NQF implementation)and society as a whole are meeting the original objectives.

The Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the NationalQualifications Framework (2002) tasked to look into the development of theNQF and particularly the SAQA role, contains numerous submissions fromstakeholders. A central finding is the fact that there is wide support for theNQF by all stakeholders, although there is significant divergence on how itsobjectives are to be achieved. However, there are substantive differences



between the Department of Education (DoE) and the Department of Labour(DoL).

When SAQA was established in 1996/1997, very little was understood in thecountry about the NQF, outcomes-based education (OBE), unit standards, etcetera, except only in theory. Over the past six years, SAQA has created anentire intellectual infrastructure as well as a considerable human supportsystem to implement the NQF. Initially SAQA occupied centre-stage withregard to the development of the new outcomes-based system, but particularlyover the past two years, this position has receded.

Since the education and training structure is a complex adaptive system composed of many sectors, interests and emphases, it is not at all surprisingthat there is now considerable realignment of interests. It is probably fair to saythat initially, as everybody was coming to terms with the NQF and OBE therewas a high degree of involvement. Over time, however, the great central visionthat is the NQF has been replaced by various sectors adapting to aspects of itwithin the boundaries of their own existing operations. While all still espousethe idea of the NQF this happens within the confines of each sector's owninterpretation of what it means. In each case this is best assessed by determiningto what extent present practice is significantly different from what it was prior to 1995.

The fact that there are now significant differences within the training and education environment with regard to SAQA and the NQF should have been anticipated. The main reason is that the establishment of an authority for all qualifications in the country, tasked with implementing a new construct, theNQF, would obviously impact differently on the various segments of the educa-tion and training landscape. Those having existing qualifications (such as theDoE and the Council of Higher Education [CHE]) would have one view.Whereas those (such as the DoL and the SETAs) needing to generate qualifications would have an entirely different view. Understandably SAQAattempted to create a uniform framework but in passing it should be mentionedthat this is not necessarily the same as an integrating framework. It is easy tosay this in retrospect. No such clarity existed in 1996.

It is important to determine the state of NQF implementation in the three mainareas of the education and training landscape.

1) Department of Education: Pull back from SAQA processes and unit standard development

Initially, the DoE had a tentative involvement in SAQA standards settingprocesses in support of Curriculum 2005. When Curriculum 2005 was

32

reviewed, the Department undertook its own implementation withoutinvolvement in the SAQA process.

The following are important features of the new DoE approach:

· A stated intention to support NQF implementation.· A commitment to ensure OBE.· Development of curriculum statements, which in essence contain the

elements of unit standards, albeit on a more macro-level.

It is interesting to note that in a recent statement on the new direction of the DoE,the Minister used the SAQA-developed critical outcomes as the basis for the newapproach.

The major problem is the fact that while the new developments reflect an OBEbias, they serve to define very narrowly (especially at Further Education andTraining (FET) level) the qualifications from the DoE. Articulation and integrationwill still be difficult. At the same time, the nature and focus of the FET Collegeswhich currently still fall under the DoE remain unclear.

It is in this arena that a construct such as the NQF is particularly applicable. Infact, unit standards that are designed to combine what the learner needs to do(outcomes) with what he/she needs to know in order to do it (assessment criteri-on and embedded knowledge) are particularly suited to both the FET environ-ment in general and for vocationally-based FET Colleges in particular. Yet nosuch development is taking place.

It is also very difficult to see how curriculum statements, given their structure andcredits, will readily articulate with the developments described below in theSETAs, or with the demands received by various NSBs within SAQA for specificdiscipline unit standards at NQF levels 2 to 4. Clearly, the great mobility of learn-ing envisaged by the NQF is nowhere visible in the developments within the DoE.Essentially education to NQF level 4 via the DoE remains a fairly impermeableand impenetrable structure with limited articulation and integration with otherdeveloping parts of the education and training environment.

2) The Higher Education and Training Sector

From the outset, individuals from universities and technikons have beeninvolved in SAQA at all levels. The technikons, in particular, have been verycommitted to restructuring their programmes. However, there has been strongresistance to unit standard development.



Early in the SAQA development process, the universities ensured the accept-ance of the dual nature of qualification structuring, namely, unit standardbased qualifications and qualifications based on exit level outcomes. Theyundertook to ensure that qualifications based on exit level outcomes reflectedthe outcomes-based thrust and incorporated the critical outcomes.

Essentially this meant that the old qualifications-structure remainedunchanged. No attempt at integration of learning areas outside of the estab-lished, traditional models has even been contemplated. The implication ofthis is that university and technikon qualifications serve the purpose for whichthey were traditionally designed. The interim registration of qualifications bySAQA reflects this. These qualifications have now been designated as‘provider-driven’ qualifications — essentially entrenching existing practice.Even the most cursory comparison between university and technikon offer-ings today and those prior to 1995 will reveal little that has changed funda-mentally. Learners still achieve qualifications that frequently articulate poorlywith workplace requirements and badly prepare people for work in the worldoutside the institution.

In recent times, with the emergence of the SETAs, CHE proposed that it beresponsible for all qualifications based on exit level outcomes in the HigherEducation and Training (HET) band. In this model, the SETAs, would onlycarry responsibility for unit standard based qualifications, and only to NQFlevel 5.

Not surprisingly, the CHE, like the DoE (as described above) wishes to retaincontrol over its traditional area of operation, namely the tertiary level. Whilethis is entirely understandable, it raises a number of important questions,such as the following:

· Is such a position really in the interest of the development of all peoples in South Africa?

· Does an approach of this nature square with international development in this area?

· Is such an approach supportive of an integrated NQF?· Will such an approach enhance the national Human Resources

Development (HRD) strategy?

It is worth noting that nothing in the above implies malicious intent. It is merelythe way a sub-system protects its own interests and resists imposed change.However, for the purposes of this discussion it is important to reflect onwhether the overall system could/should deal with its own sub-system.

34

3) The Department of Labour and the Sector Education and TrainingAuthorities

In contrast to DoE and HET Sector, DoL and the SETAs are far more clearlyaligned conceptually to the SAQA processes. This is illustrated by the factthat the SETAs, particularly, are placing very significant resources into learn-ership and unit standard development, and (recently) into qualificationsframeworking efforts for their own specific sectors.

This is not surprising. NQFs worldwide have developed particularly becauseof the mismatch between the products of formal educational institutions andthe requirements of the modern workplace. Indeed, the trade unions wereamong the major protagonists of SAQA and the NQF.

A cause for concern, however, must be the unequal development of theSETAs and their involvement in giving effect to the HRD strategy. It is appar-ent that there is little co-ordination of effort across SETAs and, in particular,poor common conceptualisation and intellectual development of the mam-moth task that confronts them. While many of the SETAs and, indeed, theNational Skills Fund (NSF) are not short of funds, they enjoy only a smallmeasure of intellectual legitimacy, particularly from the side of the universitiesand technikons. They are seen more as rich sources of potential revenue,without a clearly defined idea of what they need to do.

This is partly due to the fact that because the highly integrated nature of theHRD strategy is poorly understood by all parts of the education and trainingenvironment. The huge potential for the country of an entirely new range ofrecognised qualifications - the learnerships - with all the implications foraddressing the enormous backlogs in our society, remains a matter of paltryintellectual engagement by the existing qualifying structures.

It is left to the SETAs and the DoL, neither of whom have much experience inqualification design and structure, or the codification of the enormous amorphous mass of workplace knowledge that exists in the 25 defined sectors, to give shape and form to this entirely new construct. It is fair to saythat at the present time the SETAs and DoL are potentially tremendouschange agencies in our society.

The SETA development of qualifications and the associated learnerships andskills programmes have suffered conceptually from the undue emphasis initiallyplaced on the writing of unit standards. This occurred at the expense of theextensive scoping of areas of knowledge-application required to determine therange of functions and supporting knowledge, which comprehensively definethe knowledge-production areas of other sectors or sub-sectors. Instead of first



establishing the necessary sectoral or sub-sectoral qualifications frameworksunderpinned by defining qualification-sets before writing necessary unit stan-dards, the development process happened in reverse. The result was learner-ships and qualifications in the various sectors that do not articulate readily andwhich are not part of an integrated sectoral qualifications framework. This willnot facilitate the development of the NQF unless remedial action is taken.

To sum up, the current position is that the national discourse around educationseems to recognise the following three areas of engagement:

· Academic learning· Vocational learning· Workplace learning

There has been a significant departure from the original integrating vision ofthe NQF. Ironically this comes at a time when SAQA itself has developed a farclearer understanding of the task at hand. This can be seen by its recentdevelopment of the following:

· A contextual model for qualifications design.· An inter-disciplinary approach to standards setting and qualifications

design.

However, if any type of integration and parity amongst various areas of knowl-edge-production are to be achieved, then far more extensive qualification-setswill need to be designed to capture sector knowledge-bases. It is only withpractical examples that any possibility of intellectual parity between variousqualifications can be analysed meaningfully.

It must be acknowledged that while the country still pays lip service to the ideaof the NQF, the two major elements of the existing educational structure areworking less than efficiently toward its realisation.

Is the NQF equal to the task?

Undoubtedly South Africa has undertaken a mammoth task in the democraticarena. The government cannot be accused of a lack of vision! But the implementation of any vision remains a challenge because that is the pointwhere lives are touched and established structures and mindsets need realigning.

As pointed out above, it should not be assumed that the integrating vision ofthe NQF is fully accepted. Recently attacks have been made against the NQF

36

itself by the private sector and academics. These attacks have revolved aroundthe issues of education versus training as well as the relevance of leveldescriptors. Therefore, the question whether the NQF is equal to the task con-fronting South African society is not an idle one.

In addressing the question, it is important to note that there is no such thing as‘The NQF’. The NQF itself is a work in progress, not a completed construct thatwe as a country must attempt to reach. As has frequently been said, the NQFmust be created and constructed by South Africans, not adopted from somewhereelse. It is crucial that we continue to reflect on the conceptual base of the NQFand ensure that it remains relevant and appropriate to our growing understandingof learning and its associated recognition in our society as a whole.

The HRD strategy in its entirety rests on the following two fundamental support-ing pillars:

· Knowledge is produced in society in numerous areas of social and economic endeavours and is not confined exclusively to the normal, well-defined disciplines of the formal education and training system. This knowledge also makes high intellectual demands and needs to be codified and structured into nationally recognised and internationally bench marked qualifications and standards.

· The entire nation needs to be set on the path of lifelong learning if we are to realise the full potential of our population. This requires the crafting of a learning system where learners are truly at the centre of thelearning process and can choose learning pathways that suit particular individuals.

Careful reflection on these pillars and the supporting legislation outlined above willeasily show that this represents a complete departure from the supply-driven,teacher-centred, discipline-specific models of the past. Clearly, to move from thepast to the future requires an enabling mechanism and a framework within whichwhat is desired can occur.As has been discussed above, the NQF provides that mechanism, but in adynamic, changing world it is not cast in stone. Its very flexibility makes it theappropriate vehicle. The following issues have arisen recently around particularaspects of the NQF:

1) The NQF and business priorities

The business sector often argues that there is a fundamental differencebetween ‘education’ and ‘training’. This view holds that the ‘purpose’ and the‘outcomes-based methodologies’ of education and training are different,



and that unit standards ‘confuse behavioural processes with outcomes’ andare ‘not attuned to requisite business goals’.

The central premise of this argument is that there are fundamental differences between ‘education’ and ‘training’ and that the differences cannot be reconciled within a single NQF. This is the old debate of the 1980's resurfacing cloaked in the language of the NQF, particularly ‘outcomes’ and ‘outputs’.

What such positions fail to appreciate is that the NQF provides for a newsystem of ‘learning’. It does so by recognising the many and varied areasof knowledge-production in society. It provides the means of codification ofthis knowledge and defines the framework within which qualifications canbe defined. An analysis of any workplace at each of the different NQF levels, demonstrates graphically the wide range of knowledge areas, disciplinary, functional, social, cognitive, organisational and personal thatare involved. To reduce all of this to simple ‘training’ programmes is to dothe learner a grave disservice.

Recent developments among a number of the SETAs demonstrate the fallacy of this position. There is now a concerted move to establish qualifications frameworks that begin to define the extensive knowledge-base, both theory and practice, that is wrapped up in the various sectorsdelineated for convenience by the 25 SETAs. In achieving this it is necessary to engage in a very extensive scoping of the sector in terms ofwhat incumbents do in various positions and what they need to know to doit competently. In the process the following are established:

i) The functional taxonomy of a sector

The first step is to divide the sector into the broad functions that define itand that cover the areas in which real jobs are done. The functions are notjob descriptions, which rather define the levels at which various functions areperformed. Experience has demonstrated that usually between 8 and 12broad functional areas define a sector.

Each function in its turn is divided into a number of sub-functions, sub-sub-functions, et cetera. Here again, it has been demonstrated that usuallythree layers (to sub-sub-function) are sufficient to give a very detailed analysis of the sector usually with two levels sufficing. Going beyond thisnumber starts to define the specific learning outcomes in a unit standard.

38

ii) The knowledge taxonomy of a sector

The knowledge taxonomy is constructed after the functional taxonomy. Theknowledge taxonomy is made up of all the knowledge areas that underpin thevarious functions that define the sector. For convenience the knowledge taxon-omy has been divided into eight Knowledge Areas. These are the following:

· Functional Knowledge: This is the knowledge that enables the individual to perform the function.

· Social Knowledge: This enables the learner to work constructively with others.

· Communication: This is placed as a separate category because of its cross-cutting importance.

· Disciplinary Knowledge: These are the normal well-known disciplines.· Personal Mastery: These are the developmental aspects for individuals

themselves.· Organisational Knowledge: This is required as part of working in an

organisation.· Cognitive Processes: These are the processes of mind that can be

developed and for which a vast literature exists.· Business Knowledge: This is about business in general and the learner's

workplace in particular.

It is in merging the functional taxonomy and the knowledge taxonomy that theTitles Matrices for qualifications begin to emerge.

iii) Determine the qualification-set for the sector

In juxtaposing the function taxonomy and knowledge taxonomy of the sector inas much detail as necessary, it is now possible to determine the qualification-set that will adequately define the learning needs and pathways in the sector.

At the same time, since the extensive learning outcomes that are defined aspart of any unit standard are closely related to what individuals are able ‘to do’,there must be a very close relationship between competent activity and busi-ness priorities.

Thus the qualifications and then learnerships that emerge from this process arecompletely aligned with the requirements of competence development in anybusiness situation. At the same time, however, it also encompasses the centralrequirement of the NQF — the holistic development of the individual.

At its heart the NQF recognises that learner development is far broader thansimply training an individual to do a job better.



2) The NQF and level descriptors

In a recent article Blackmur (2003) challenges in particular, the value of leveldescriptors as a mechanism for determining the relative value of qualifications.He says:

This paper argues that the conceptual and operational dimensions of a NQF classification system are such that it cannot serve the purposes for which it was designed … a structured, levelled NQF distorts information about qualifications to such an extent that serious consideration needs tobe given to abandoning the NQF classification system as a viableinstrument of public policy (Blackmur, 2003:2).

Not even the most fervent protagonists of the NQF regard it as a scientificallyexact structure with the attendant body of theory and practice that can producethe intellectual rigour of (say) quantum mechanics. Any attempt to make theNQF academically perfect would fail. It is not and it is inconceivable that it willbecome such, until we know a lot more about learning in its totality than we doat present. The NQF is designed to introduce some degree of parity and equiv-alence between the many qualifications that are beginning to emerge fromareas of knowledge-production with qualifications that already exist in the well-defined discipline arenas.

It is interesting to note that most of Blackmur’s arguments centre on the present academic qualifications in society. He makes the point repeatedly thatthere is little perceived parity between different academic degrees at the samelevel. As a result, he argues that the labour market can get no reliable information with respect to possible appointments. But even this view suffersfrom the same lack of rigorous intellectual scrutiny that it accuses the NQFclassification system of not having. For example, in the late 1980’s, IBMrecruited philosophy graduates for its burgeoning information technology systems development areas because these people demonstrated the appropriate cognitive capacities they were seeking. The issue of transferabilityof learning, cognitive processing and functioning across different knowledgeareas has always been an extremely vexing question to both educators andlearners. To expect NQFs to solve these questions in a few short years is towant the impossible. Perhaps it is a valid point that NQF developers shouldtone down the claims and expectations of what the NQF can achieve in thisregard.

There are much broader political and social issues at stake here, particularly in asociety with the historical inequalities of South Africa. As a society we need tobring into the parity loop all those millions who have no recognition at all for what

40

they have learned over many years in different environments, usually outside of formal institutions. Thousands of new qualifications in occupationally-based areasneed to be established. This will have the effect of bringing millions of new‘graduates’ into the frame. Establishing parity between these and the acceptedacademic qualifications will undoubtedly prove to be a tremendous intellectual challenge. But if the various areas of learning in our society need to be broughtinto balance, then it is imperative that it be done. For South Africa this is one of theprime reasons for establishing, expanding and refining the NQF.

Specifically, with respect to level descriptors, while it is blindingly obvious it is nevertheless worth saying: level descriptor definition is not an exact science. Andthus, while it is possible to define a level with as many outcomes as you like it willnever be sufficient. It is therefore probably better to err on the side of brevity.

Does this imply that level descriptors are unimportant? On the contrary, any systemof learning must include progression paths. However, to try to make it as definitiveas a set of concrete steps are not possible. Most disciplines have developed aninnate logic over many years of what constitutes level progression. And these haveto be updated regularly, since obviously a BSc in physics in the year 2003 wouldlook very different from one in the year 1900, prior to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etcetera.

Even today the equivalence debate between a BSc with Mathematics and Physicsand a BA with Philosophy and English is not one that can be definitively decided.Level descriptors have as much a feel about them, defined by able practitioners, asthey are open to rigorous definition.

Now that occupationally-based qualifications are being added to the NQF bouquet,this will serve to add to the many dilemmas that already exist around level descriptors. A possible route in this regard is to match common sense and experientially-based approaches. For example, academic levels on the NQF haveresulted as much from experience as from hard fact, as outlined above.Occupationally-based levels on the other hand, are readily defined in terms oflevels of responsibility. For example, clearly the responsibility carried by the ChiefExecutive Officer (CEO) in an organisation is higher than that of a clerk. Thegreater responsibility as one moves up the company-tree often plays out in terms ofstrategic and operational areas. Matching NQF levels and responsibility levelscould prove fruitful in developing uniform level descriptors.

Arguing that the NQF could suffer a degree of non-functionality over this issuewould tend to extreme elitism. To require the NQF to solve dilemmas that haveplagued discipline-based qualifications over many years is to ask for what is notpossible.



Ultimately, what are required are high quality qualifications that can be implementedin the various learning environments. Out of this will emerge a degree of equivalence. And, in the process mistakes will be made. And so we will learn.

Measuring recent proposals with respect to the NQF againstemerging reality

The two documents mentioned in the Introduction, address the state of the NQF. Itis important to place the observations and recommendations contained in both thedocuments in the context of what is happening on the ground with regard to standards setting and qualifications establishment. There is a rapidly emergingreality as SAQA and the SETAs understand more clearly than before, both themagnitude of the task facing the nation and the amount of work involved in bringingthe NQF to any semblance of fruition.

It is particularly important to note these issues in view of SAQA’s almost six yearsof experience and the SETA's four year existence. While much time was spentinitially clearly conceptualising the NQF tapestry, delivery is now beginning inearnest. This is not the time to be unravelling the fabric of standards setting andqualifications generation. Unit standards, qualifications, qualification-sets and qualifications frameworks are more and more rapidly coming off the production line.It is now incumbent on policy-makers to examine whether the structures in placeare adequate to deal with the present and future increases. It is certainly not thetime to decimate capacity.

What are the facts?

1. Discipline-based qualifications development is only a small component of our evolving learning system.

2. The dynamics of knowledge-production throughout our society are more clearly recognised.

3. The centrality of learning in diverse contexts is more readily understood.4. The lack of recognition, codification, structuring and reward of this

learning is being recognised.5. The number of persons engaged in this type of learning far exceeds the

total number in tertiary learning institutions in the country.6. The seamless integration of discipline-based knowledge and trans-

disciplinary knowledge-application and learning in actual working environments is far better understood.

7. SETAs are recognising the importance of sectoral qualifications frame-works within which reside qualification-sets and qualifications made up ofa multiplicity of unit standards. These cover discipline-based and trans-disciplinary areas of knowledge as well as the knowledge of application.

8. Literally thousands of learnerships based on these qualification-sets are in the process of development. These will be tabled in the coming

42

months. The pressure on SAQA to ensure that the qualification-sets andrelated qualifications on which these learnerships are based are registered timeously and expeditiously will be tremendous. A proposal inthis regard is made below.

9. Already in certain areas (for example, NSB 037) the SAQA capacity is being severely tested.

10.In other areas, the SAQA capacity as presently structured is patently inadequate. For example, NSB 108 has under its aegis a Standards Generating Body (SGB) for Aeronautics Operations covering the air transport industry from 747 pilots to baggage handlers. It resorts under NSB 10 simply because there is no easy fit within the present 12 Organising Fields.

11.The demand for appropriate, targeted unit standards in various discipline-based fields is growing exponentially as trans-disciplinary, sectoral qualification framework development increases. For example (toname but a few), the need for unit standards in the following is exploding:· Mathematical Literacy· Communications· Life Skills· Management· Accounting· Mathematical Statistics· Physics· Chemistry· Et cetera.

12. The crucial role that the present discipline-based NSBs play in assuring coherent, consistent unit standards and exit level outcomes across curriculum statements, qualification and unit standard development is central to the development of a coherent NQF. Reality demonstrates thatthis role will grow, not diminish.

It is unacceptable and worrying that at the very time that the expertisedeveloped over six years within NSBs and other SAQA structures (albeit in afairly contained environment) is vitally necessary to deal with the coming flood,there are proposals that effectively dismantle that capacity.

Proposals to accommodate the emerging reality

The above gives a flavour of what is beginning to emerge on the ground.During the next two to three years as more and more SETAs realise the impor-tance of qualifications frameworks in their sectors, the developing flood of quali-fications and learnerships will become a torrent. It is estimated that if every


7 NSB 03: Business, Commerce and Management Studies8 NSB 10: Physical, Mathematics, Computer and Life Sciences


SETA establishes sectoral qualifications frameworks, each will have an averageof 20 new qualifications immediately. Each of these, if appropriately structured,could in their turn, probably support between three and five learnerships.

The question the various structures and particularly DoE, DoL and CHE shouldbe asking themselves is how to gear up now to deal with this. It is no time tobe dismantling SAQA and its hard earned capacity.

Self-evident measures include the following:

1. Revise and expand the number of the NSBs better to mirror, reflect and encompass the 12 Organising Fields and the 25 SETAs.

2. Review the 12 Organising Fields and retain the discipline-based fields in one or two NSBs (with appropriate expertise within reconstituted SGBs) while expanding the trans-disciplinary areas appropriately with attendant NSBs.

3. Reconstitute the make-up of the NSBs in association with the SETAs to do the following:· Retain appropriate stakeholder representation.· Incorporate relevant qualifications and standards setting expertise.· Include relevant sector experts.

4. Reduce the number of members on each NSB to no more than 12 and pay them for their time, expertise, et cetera.

5. Redefine appropriate SGBs under the newly reconstituted NSBs in a waythat reflects the standards setting priorities that are emerging. Give eachSGB appropriate, detailed capacity building.

6. Ensure that all SETAs and Professional Bodies are covered by the reconstituted NSBs.

7. Require each SETA to provide an annual grant to SAQA with a central grant from the National Skills Authority (NSA). This should be apart fromthe annual mandatory DoE and DoL allocations.

In addition, SAQA will have the following central roles with respect to the NQF:

A. Ensure the development of an integrated NQF as the country moves to the notion of a ‘Ministry of Learning’ in principle, if not in practice.

B. Ensure articulation between various elements of the NQF (Umalusi, CHE, proposed Trade, Occupational and Professional Qualifications and Quality Asssurance Council [TOP QC]) at the qualification and standardssetting levels to make portability a reality.

C. Develop appropriate level descriptors.D. Develop the theory and implementation of the Recognition of Prior

Learning (RPL).

44

E. In general, address emerging elements of the qualification and standardssetting system to promote the ultimate integration into one NQF.

F. Review activities after five years and introduce necessary changes, revi-sions et cetera.

Conclusion

While the above discussion has focused mainly on the knowledge-productionand codification aspects of the NQF, the other major aspect that needs carefulconsideration is that of delivery. Given the large numbers of persons who willbe affected directly by new qualifications and skills programmes that are beingdeveloped, creative and different means of delivery must be sought.

It will be naive to believe that this can be achieved without the enthusiasticinvolvement of the existing education and training structures at HigherEducation and Training (HET), Further Education and Training (FET) andGeneral Education and Training (GET) levels. It cannot be business as usualfor these institutions. Rather, new and different learning partnerships will needto be crafted between workplaces large and small, public and private providersand the SETAs. Only in this way have we any hope as a nation of addressingthe enormous backlogs with which we are faced. Lifelong learning for all whowant it (one of the cornerstones of the NQF) will only be achieved in ways dif-ferent from the traditional.

In the words of Albert Einstein: ‘You cannot solve a problem with the samethinking that created it’.



References

Blackmur, D. (2003). A critique of the concept of a national qualificationsframework. Paper presented at the Conference held at the University of theWestern Cape, July 2003.

Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). (1999). Understanding learning at work.London: Routledge.

South Africa. (1995). South African Qualifications Authority Act. (No. 58 of1995). Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (1996).White paper on science and technology. Preparing for the twenty-first century.Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Department of Education. (1995). White paper on educationand training. Pretoria: Government Printer.

South Africa. Department of Education and Department of Labour. (2002).Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of the National QualificationsFramework. Pretoria: The Departments.

South Africa. Department of Education and Department of Labour. (2003). AnInterdependent National Qualifications Framework System: ConsultativeDocument. Pretoria: The Departments.

South African Qualifications Authority. (2000). The National QualificationsFramework: An Overview. Pretoria: SAQA.

Endnote:The 12 NQF Organising Fields are:(1) Agriculture and Nature Conservation (2) Culture and Arts (3) Business, Commerce and Management Studies(4) Communication Studies and Language(5) Education, Training and Development (6) Manufacturing, Engineering and Technology(7) Human and Social Studies (8) Law, Military Science and Security(9) Health Sciences and Social Services (10) Physical, Mathematical, Computer and Life Sciences (11) Services (12) Physical Planning and Construction.

46